Judgment : This second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 01-09-2008, made in A.S.No.29 of 2006, on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 10-03-2006, in O.S.No.400 of 2003, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff for grant of perpetual injunction was decreed. 2. For better appreciation, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 3. The averments of the plaint in brief, are as follows: The plaintiff is a registered Society under the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 (for brevity 'the Act'). The aims and objects of the society is to provide good education and basic knowledge in the vicinity of amachandrapur. The society was incorporated and registered by seven members including the President, Vice-President etc., and as the members of the society could not administer the society to the utmost satisfaction and as such four members have resigned and nine new members have joined and the said quorum started functioning in November, 2002 and the new quorum of the society contributed handsome amounts to develop the Education Society, such as construction of the new building, providing new equipments and laboratory, improving the new staff and providing amenities by the start of academic year, 2003 and the new members of the society have successful enough to procure the number of students and started school. Thereafter, the members of the society had unanimously elected Ravi Anantha as Secretary by resolution, dated 14-04-2003 and the said appointment was intimated to the Registrar of Societies, by letter, dated 24-02-2003. The accounts of the society were udi This second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 01-09-2008, made in A.S.No.29 of 2006, on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 10-03-2006, in O.S.No.400 of 2003, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff for grant of perpetual injunction was decreed. 2. For better appreciation, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 3. 2. For better appreciation, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 3. The averments of the plaint in brief, are as follows: The plaintiff is a registered Society under the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 (for brevity 'the Act'). The aims and objects of the society is to provide good education and basic knowledge in the vicinity of amachandrapur. The society was incorporated and registered by seven members including the President, Vice-President etc., and as the members of the society could not administer the society to the utmost satisfaction and as such four members have resigned and nine new members have joined and the said quorum started functioning in November, 2002 and the new quorum of the society contributed handsome amounts to develop the Education Society, such as construction of the new building, providing new equipments and laboratory, improving the new staff and providing amenities by the start of academic year, 2003 and the new members of the society have successful enough to procure the number of students and started school. Thereafter, the members of the society had unanimously elected Ravi Anantha as Secretary by resolution, dated 14-04-2003 and the said appointment was intimated to the Registrar of Societies, by letter, dated 24-02-2003. The accounts of the society were udited and during the course of audit, it came to light that old Secretary swindled several lakhs of rupees to benefit personally with the active connivance of the 1st defendant, which was also observed by the members of the new body. The said fact was intimated to the defendants several times and requested to pay the said amount including their contribution, but the defendants failed to do so. It is further stated that the defendants were only acting as ordinary members of the society and their indulgence in the society was more without any right of whatsoever and trying to misguide the management of the society and 2/3rd of the members of the society have also unanimously resolved to expel them from the society and passed a resolution, dated 01-06-2003, to the effect that if the defendants will not pay their contribution within 15 days, they will be expelled. Another member who was Ex-President tendered his resignation. Another member who was Ex-President tendered his resignation. Pursuant to the meeting, dated 01-06-2003, the defendants though they are in the knowledge of the resolution, neither paid contribution nor stopped their illegal indulgence into the society. The members of the society also intimated the said fact to the Registrar of Societies about the expelling of the defendants as members and also intimated the defendants under registered letters under acknowledgment with respective postal receipts. Knowing fully that the defendants are no more connected to the plaintiff society and to avoid their payments, started illegally taking the law into their hands to take back the society illegally. The plaintiff society had taken all care and caution in dealing with the defendants by intimating them about their expelling from the society. After re-opening of the school after Dasara Vacations, the defendants have once again started their illegal action by indulging themselves into day-to-day affairs of the society by entering into the premises unauthorisedly with muscle men and thereby causing inconvenience and disturbance to the management of the society including the students and also causing inconvenience to the parents of the students and staff. When the plaintiff society approached the police, police expressed their inability as the matter is of civil nature. Hence, the suit was filed for perpetual injunction against the defendants, their men and agents restraining them from interfering with the activities of the school and disturbing the functioning of the school by adopting illegal methods. 4. The defendants filed written statement and while admitting the registration of the society and its aims and objects and submitting resignation by four members due to personal problems, denied the other averments of the plaint. The averment that the members of the society could not administer the society to the satisfaction of the requirement of the objects and aims of the society is false. The resignation letters of four members were attested by the President and kept with the 2nd defendant and those papers have been stolen by Ravi Anantha and used for their motives. The resignations were not accepted by the society. The averment that the resignations were accepted and nine new members were joined in the society and quorum started functioning in November, 2002 onwards are false. There is a procedure prescribed in convening a special meeting for the purpose of amendment or alteration of association. The resignations were not accepted by the society. The averment that the resignations were accepted and nine new members were joined in the society and quorum started functioning in November, 2002 onwards are false. There is a procedure prescribed in convening a special meeting for the purpose of amendment or alteration of association. A special meeting should be held for the purpose of accepting the resignations of the four members and admitting the new members into the society and further they should be second special meeting to confirm the minutes of the first meeting. No such special meetings were held as per the averments of the plaint and therefore, the alleged resignation of four members and admission of nine new members are incorrect and illegal. The plaintiff has manipulated the records and forged the signatures of the President. It is denied that the new quorum of the society had contributed amount for the envelopment of the society and the new members of the society were successfully procured many number of students and started the school. As a matter of fact, the school is being run by the society represented by the 2nd defendant in the capacity of General Secretary of the society. The averment that the new quorum started functioning and during the course of their activities, the members of the society elected Ravi Anantha as Secretary is false and the alleged meting held at Ashoka Hotel, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad, without prior intimation to the members of the society, itself indicates the scrumptious activities of the plaintiff. The signatures of K. Satyanarayana and the 2nd defendant on the minutes of the meeting, dated 14-04-2003 are forged. As per the bye-laws of the society 2/3rd of the members shall convene for the purpose of the amendments and the same should be confirmed by 2/3rd members at the special second meeting. The alleged resolution, dated 14-04-2003 is fabricated. The averment that the accounts of the society were audited and the 2nd defendant misappropriated lakhs of rupees are incorrect and false. The further averment that the defendants were acting as ordinary members and tried to misguide the management of the society is incorrect. It is denied that 2/3rd of the members of the society have expelled the defendants from the society by resolution, dated 01-06-2003, when the defendants fail to pay their contribution within 15 days. The further averment that the defendants were acting as ordinary members and tried to misguide the management of the society is incorrect. It is denied that 2/3rd of the members of the society have expelled the defendants from the society by resolution, dated 01-06-2003, when the defendants fail to pay their contribution within 15 days. It is stated that no such special meeting was held as alleged. The defendants have been maintaining cordial relationship with the contributors, creditors and donors and in the said process, the defendants allowed the plaintiff to have free accessibility to the society in the office and the premises to maintain transparency. The defendants reliably learnt that the plaintiff has manipulated the documents. As a matter of fact, the school has been running by the society represented by the defendants. Therefore, the defendants pray to dismiss the suit. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court settled the following issues for trial: 1.Whether this Court has legal jurisdiction to try the suit? 2.Whether the suit is maintainable by the person who verified the pleadings? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the perpetual injunction as prayed for? 6. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A51 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B33 were marked. 7. The trial Court after consideration of evidence on record, held that it has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit and P.W.1 is the competent person to institute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff society. It was further held that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the documents Exs. A1 to A51 establish the case of the plaintiff and accordingly, decreed the suit with costs. Challenging the same, the defendants preferred appeal. The learned District Judge vide impugned judgment allowed the appeal with exemplary costs of Rs.20,000/- by setting aside the judgment of the trial Court holding that P.W.1 pretended as if he is the original Secretary and he filed the suit without any authority, that he is not a member of the society and the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit under Section 23 of the Act. Hence, this appeal by the plaintiff. 8. Hence, this appeal by the plaintiff. 8. The substantial questions of law in this Second Appeal are whether the failure of the Lower Appellate Court in not adverting to the oral and documentary evidence on record and failure to examine the contentions urged vitiates the judgment, that whether in the absence of prejudice, can the Appellate Court can go into the question of territorial jurisdiction, that whether a suit against a ceased member of the society is hit by Section 23 of the Act and whether the civil court is competent to go into the question and record finding as to a dispute falling within the jurisdiction of the court specified in the Special Act viz., A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001? 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff contended that the defendants were expelled from the society in June, 2003 and by a resolution, dated 14-04-2003, the 2nd defendant was removed from the post of Secretary and Ravi Anantha was elected as Secretary of the society, that as a matter of fact, the 2nd defendant admitted the minutes submitted and signed in the meeting, that when the meeting was held on 01-06-2003 under Ex.A24, the 2nd defendant was expelled from the membership of the society as he failed to pay back the amounts, that the factum of election of Ravi Anantha as Secretary was intimated to the Registrar of Societies under Ex.A16 and Ex.A2 is the certified copy of list of office bearers, which was signed by the 2nd defendant shows that Ravi Anantha is the executive member of the society. He further contended that basing on the evidence on record, the trial Court held that the society represented by Ravi Anantha has been managing the school and the said fact was admitted by the defendants, that the trial Court rightly decreed the suit and the appellate court ought to have adverted to the oral and documentary evidence on record, since it is a final court of findings of fact, that the appellate court failed to advert to the evidence and came to a one sided approach and the same can be interdicted by this Court under Section 100 CPC. He further contended that the appellate court has not adverted to Ex.B8 with reference to other documents on record, that if Ex.B8 is compared with the other evidence, it would be clear that it is a concocted document, that as per Ex.B8, the society should start leveling of the land, that as Ex.A6-lease deed is subsequent to Ex.B8, question of leveling of the land earlier to obtaining lease does not arise and it is only under Ex.A49, the society intimated its decision to grant lease of the land, that the resolution, dated 31-03-2002, records wrong terms of non-existing lease and the resolution, dated 08-07-2002 records a General Secretary was authorized to submit information to the D.E.O. Sangareddy, appears to be false because Exs.B1 and B2 would clearly go to show that the Educational authorities never called for any information and that the resolution, dated 29-09-2002, which records the resignation letters of four members are misplaced. He further contended that two different stands have been taken by the defendants, one is that Ravi Anantha had stolen the same, whereas in the evidence, it is clear that resignation letters were misplaced in the society's office, that the resolution dated 31-10-2002, shows about the visit of D.E.O. is false, that the resolutions dated 08-07-2002 and 31-08-2002 were written by one Sambasiava Rao, who is a member of the society, but as per the evidence, it is clear that he was not a member of the said society and could not have recorded the minutes of the society, that in the light of the aforesaid reasons, it cannot be said that Exs.B7 and B8 are genuine and that the finding that Ravi Anantha was not a member of the society is incorrect in view of Ex.A2. He further contended that the 2nd defendant went to the extent of denying everything including his signatures in the sale deed and 1st defendant was not examined, that Ex.A31, which is the progress report of the daughter of the 2nd defendant issued by the school would reveal that Ravi Anantha is the Secretary of the society and that appellate court has not considered Ex.A31. Therefore, the findings of the appellate court are perverse. 10. Therefore, the findings of the appellate court are perverse. 10. On the point of jurisdiction, he contended that school is situated within the jurisdiction of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy and the suit relates to the interference caused by the defendants to the school and therefore, it has got territorial jurisdiction to try the suit, that Section 23 of the Act has no application because the suit is not relating to the affairs of the society and hence, he prays to set aside the judgment and decree of the appellate court. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-defendants contended that the averments in the additional paras in the written statement are not denied or disputed by filing a re-joinder, that the burden is heavily on Ravi Anantha to show that he is the Secretary of the society, that the address of the society as noted in the certificate of registration would clearly go to show that Principal Junior Civil Judge, Medak at Sangareddy has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit, that even P.W.1 admitted that he has not intimated the change of address to the Medak District Registrar as required under law and that in view of Section 10 of the Act, the office of the society is situated in Ranga Reddy District, but not in other District. He further contended that P.Ws. 1 and 2 did not produce the receipts evidencing payment of admission fee and monthly subscription to show their admission as members in the society, that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants were expelled from the society and the plaintiff failed to produce any resolution or evidence to prove that the resignation of the four members creating vacancies for four members were accepted. He further contended that the plaintiff failed to show that nine new members were admitted in the society including Ravi Anantha and the plaintiff has not produced any resolution of the Executive Committee or General Body admitting them as members, that the plaintiff relied upon Ex.A2 that one Ajay Chowdary was the Vice-President in addition to 2nd defendant, that as per bye-law there can be only one Vice-President and therefore, Ajay Chowdary as Vice-President cannot be acted upon. He further contended that nine new members quorum as pleaded in the plaint was not proved and the bye-law does not confer any power on the new quorum to remove the President, Vice-President and General Secretary, that Ex.B7, which is the minutes book of the General Body Meeting held on 19-01-2003 and Ex.B18, which is the endorsement of the Registrar of Societies would go to show that the President and Vice-President are continuing as office bearers, that the pleadings in O.P.456 of 2004 are not relevant, that Ex.A2 has no legal sanctity, that the trial Court should have held that Ravi Anantha and others have no right to represent the society because they filed O.P.456 of 2004 to declare them as members of the society and it is for the plaintiff to prove his case to show that Ravi Anantha is the member of the society in proof of Ex.A2 and other resolutions, but no person is examined to prove the resolutions and Ex.A2. He further contended that plaintiff should win on the strength of his own case but not on the weaknesses of the defendant's case, that the resolution Ex.B8 would clearly go to show that the society was got registered by the defendants and the Executive Committee members and that Ex.B8-resolution was not properly considered by the trial Court, that the trial Court has not considered Exs.B20, 22, 23, 25 and 26 and without noticing two types of meetings, disbelieved Ex.B7, that Ex.B7 was opened for writing the meeting of Annual General Body and Ex.B8 was opened for writing the meeting of the Executive Committee and therefore, Exs.B4,B5, B7 and B8 would clearly go to show that defendants 1 and 2 are the Vice-President and General Secretary respectively and the name of Ravi Anantha does not find place in those documents. He further contended that if really Ex.A2 is true and correct document, the papers in Ex.C1 must contain the original of Ex.A2 also, that Ex.C1 which was summoned with the consent of the parties would go to show that it does not contain the original of Ex.A2, that Ex.A15, dated 14-04-2003 was cooked up document because in Ex.A20-sale deed, dated 21-04-2003, Ravi Anantha purchased the site of the society, wherein he did not describe himself as Secretary of the society and he did not even describe himself as member of the society and therefore, Ex.A15 destroys the case of the plaintiff that Ravi Anantha was the secretary and Ajay Chowdary was the Vice-resident. He further contended that the appellate court after considering both oral and documentary evidence including Ex.C1 and the certified copy of the order dismissing O.P.456 of 2004 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, and after giving cogent reasons reversed the judgment of the trial Court, that none of the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant in fact are not substantial questions of law, but they are only questions of fact and hence, he prays to dismiss the second appeal. 12. There cannot be any dispute that, under the amended Section 100 C.P.C., a party aggrieved by the decree passed by the first appellate court has no absolute right of appeal. He can neither challenge the decree on a question of fact or on a question of law. The second appeal lies only where the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. The word 'substantial' as qualifying 'question of law', means and conveys - of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important, considerable, fairly arguable, in contradiction with -technical, formal, or no substance, no consequence or academic only. A substantial question of law should directly and substantially affect the rights of the parties. A question of law can be said to be substantial between the parties if the decision in appeal turns one way or the other on the particular view of law. But, if the question does not affect the decision, it cannot be said to be substantial question between the parties. A question of law can be said to be substantial between the parties if the decision in appeal turns one way or the other on the particular view of law. But, if the question does not affect the decision, it cannot be said to be substantial question between the parties. Recording a finding without any evidence on record; disregard or non-consideration of relevant or admissible evidence; taking into consideration irrelevant or inadmissible evidence; perverse finding- are some of the questions, which involve substantial questions of law. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on a decision reported in Hero Vinoth (Minor) V. Seshammal (2006) 5 Scc 545 , wherein it was held thus: "To be "substantial" a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law "involving in the case" there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case, or not; the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis. (See: Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (deceased) by Lrs." 14. He also relied on another decision reported in P. Chandrasekharam & Others V. S.Kanakarajan & Others (2007) 5 Scc 669 , wherein it was held thus: " The High Court shall also be entitled to opine that a substantial question of law arises for its consideration when material and relevant facts have been ignored and legal principles have not been applied in appreciating the evidence. Arriving at a decision, upon taking into consideration irrelevant factors, would also give rise to a substantial question of law. It may, however, be different that only on the same set of facts the higher court takes a different view. {See Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Swastic Woollens (P) Ltd. and Ors. (1988) Supp. SCC 796; and Metroark Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta" 15. He also relied on another decision reported in Jagdish Singh V. Natthu Singh Air 1992 Supreme Court 1604 , wherein it was held thus: "In our opinion, the High Court was right in its view. The notices must be presumed to have been served as contemplated by Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. As to the jurisdiction of the High Court to re-appreciate evidence in a second appeal it is to be observed that where the findings by the Court of facts is vitiated by non-consideration of relevant evidence or by an essentially erroneous approach to the matter, the High Court is not precluded from recording proper findings. We find no substance in the first contention" 16. He also relied on another decision reported in Yadarao Dajiba Shrawane (Dead) By L.Rs V Nanilal Harakchand Shah (Dead) And Others Air 2002 Sc 2849 , wherein it was held thus: "From the discussions in the judgment it is clear that the High Court has based its findings on the documentary evidence placed on record and statements made by some witnesses which can be construed as admissions or conclusions. The position is well settled that when the judgment of the final Court of fact is based on misinterpretation of documentary evidence or on consideration of inadmissible evidence or ignoring material evidence the High Court in second appeal is entitled to interfere with the judgment. The position is also well settled that admission of parties or their witnesses are relevant pieces of evidence and should be given due weightage by Courts. A finding of fact ignoring such admissions or concessions is vitiated in law and can be interfered with by the High Court in second appeal. Since the parties have been in litigating terms for several decades the records are voluminous. The High Court as it appears from judgment has discussed the documentary evidence threadbare in the light of law relating to their admissibility and relevance" 17. Since the parties have been in litigating terms for several decades the records are voluminous. The High Court as it appears from judgment has discussed the documentary evidence threadbare in the light of law relating to their admissibility and relevance" 17. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied on a decision reported in Boodireddy Chandraiah V Arigela Laxmi Air 2008 Sc 380 ,wherein it was held thus: "The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to 'decision based on no evidence', it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding" 18. The suit was filed by M/s Margadarshini Educational Society represented by its Secretary, Ravi Anantha, for grant of perpetual injunction against the defendants, their men and agents restraining them from interfering into the ay- to-day activities of the school and disturbing the functioning of the school by adopting illegal methods. It is not in dispute that M/s Margadarshini Educational Society was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 2001 bearing registration No.69 of 2002 with the aims and objects viz., to maintain unity among the society, to solve the social ground problems, to give good education and basic knowledge, to organize the cultural activities and to conduct the social activities. It is also not in dispute that in the first instance, the society was incorporated and registered by seven members including office bearers. Similarly, it is not in dispute that four members namely, Smt.V.Jaya Laxmi, P. Subbarayudu, P.Subhasini and P. Subba Rao, submitted their resignations. According to the plaintiff, they gave their resignations as they could not administer the society, but according to the defendants, their resignation was due to their personal problems. Similarly, it is not in dispute that four members namely, Smt.V.Jaya Laxmi, P. Subbarayudu, P.Subhasini and P. Subba Rao, submitted their resignations. According to the plaintiff, they gave their resignations as they could not administer the society, but according to the defendants, their resignation was due to their personal problems. The specific case of the plaintiff is that after four members resigned the society, nine new members have joined the society and new quorum of members unanimously elected Ravi Anantha as Secretary by resolution, dated 14-04-2003. The said fact was intimated to the Registrar of Societies. Whereas, the specific case of the defendants is that as per the General Body Meeting held on 19-01-2003, the society elected the office bearers and executive members and that Ravi Anantha was not at all a member of the society. 19. There cannot be any dispute that this court cannot take a different view than the one taken by the appellate court unless the findings are perverse or based upon no evidence at all. No doubt, this Court exercising the powers under Section 100 CPC cannot go into the question of law and finding of a fact, but at the same time the facts have to be referred to and the evidence has to be necessarily be looked into for the purpose of deciding whether the findings are perverse or based upon any evidence. 20. Permanent injunction or perpetual injunction is explained in Section 37 (2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which reads thus: 37. Temporary and perpetual injunctions: 1) .,.... 2) A perpetual injunction can only be granted by the decree made at the hearing and upon the merits of the suit, the defendant is thereby perpetually enjoined from the assertion of a right, or from the commission of an act, which would be contrary to the rights of the plaintiff" In order to get a permanent injunction, the plaintiff has to establish that he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the date of the suit and that balance of convenience or irreparable injury in his favour and that he has got prima facie case in which he sought for permanent injunction. It is equally well settled that the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his case by adducing sufficient evidence and that the plaintiff cannot succeed on the weaknesses of the case put forward by the defendant in view of the decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents reported in Syed Fahim Arif And Another V Rahmatunnisa Begum And Another 2005 (3) Ald 545 (Db), wherein it was held thus: "In M.M.B. Catholicos V. M.P. Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526 , it was held that the plaintiff in ejectment suit must succeed on the strength of his own title and this can be done by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus that is on him irrespective of whether the defendant has proved his onus or not and a mere destruction of the respondents/defendants title in the absence of establishment of his own title carries the plaintiff nowhere. In Brahma Nand Puri v. Neki Puri, MANU/SC/0295/1964, it was held that in a suit for ejectment, the plaintiff has to succeed or fail on the title he establishes and if he cannot succeed on the strength of his title, the suit must fail notwithstanding that the defendant in possession has no title to the property. Strong reliance also was placed on S.M.M. Kunhi Koya Thangal v. B.J.P. Dharas Committee and Ors., 2004 SAR (Civil) 832, where the Apex Court held that the cardinal principle in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession on the strength of title is that the plaintiff can succeed only on establishing his title to the suit property and the plaintiff cannot succeed on the weakness of the case put forward by the defendant" Therefore, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that he has got prima facie case, balance of convenience and the irreparable injury if injunction was not granted. As P.W.1 asserts that he is the duly elected Secretary of M/s Margadarshini Educational Society by virtue of resolution, dated 14-04-2003, he must prove that he was admitted as member of the society and thereafter he was duly elected as Secretary in accordance with the provisions of the Act and bye-laws of the society. The burden of proof has two different things. It means sometimes that a party is required to prove the allegation before the judgment is given in his favour. The burden of proof has two different things. It means sometimes that a party is required to prove the allegation before the judgment is given in his favour. Unless it is shown that he was duly elected as Secretary of the society, he cannot file any suit on behalf of the society. The burden of proof also means that on a contested issue, one of the two contesting parties has to adduce evidence. Since it is denied that Ravi Anantha was the member of the society, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to show that he was duly inducted as member of the society as per bye-laws. 21. It is specifically pleaded in the written statement that admission fee of member is Rs.15/- and monthly subscription is Rs.10/-and the annual General Body will meet once in a year in the month of January. The quorum of Annual General Body is 1/2 of the members of the General Body Meeting and 1/4th of the Executive Committee meeting. It is also stated in the additional paras of the written statement that for the purpose of alteration and amendments of he society, it is to be voted by 2/3rd of its members at a special meeting convened for the purpose and confirmed by 2/3rd of the members present at a second special meeting. This aspect of the case is not even disputed by the plaintiff. The Annual General Body meeting was held on 19-02-2003 as per the byelaws and 15 new persons were admitted in the society as members and all the members of the society requested the four members of the society who submitted the resignations to keep their resignations in abeyance. Therefore, according to the Annual General Body meting, inter alia 2nd defendant was elected as General Secretary and 1st defendant was elected as Vice-President of the society. Ex.A1 is the registration certificate issued by the Registrar of Societies, Ranga Reddy District. This document would clearly go to show that 1st defendant was the Vice-President and 2nd defendant was the General Secretary. Therefore, Ravi Anantha, who was claiming to be the Secretary of the society, in the first instance, must show that he was duly admitted as member of the society and thereafter, it must be shown that he was duly elected as Secretary. Therefore, Ravi Anantha, who was claiming to be the Secretary of the society, in the first instance, must show that he was duly admitted as member of the society and thereafter, it must be shown that he was duly elected as Secretary. Except stating in his evidence that four members of the society have resigned the society, nine new members have joined and the new quorum started functioning from November, 2002, he did not state that he is one among the nine new members. Similarly, he has not filed any document to show that he was duly admitted as member of the society by paying necessary requisite membership fee as per byelaws. According to his evidence, he joined as member of the society on 21-01-2002. He does not remember the amount paid towards membership fee. Admittedly, he has not filed any receipt. Except his oral assertion that he was shown as a member on 21-01-2002, there was absolutely no material to show that he was duly admitted as member. Admittedly, he was not one of the founder members of the society. So his admission of membership must be in accordance with the bye-laws of the society. The membership admission into the society necessarily has to be approved by the General Body or by the Executive Committee, but no such resolution is filed to show that he was duly admitted as member of the society either by the Executive Committee or by the General Body. It is not in dispute before this Court that O.P.456 of 2004 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, was filed by Ravi Anantha and some others to declare that the respondents 2 to 23 were not the members of the society and for a direction to the District Registrar to recognize the petitioners as members of the 1st respondent society. Therefore, in the said petition, the main relief sought for was to recognize him and others as members of the society and that petition was dismissed on the ground that the dispute raised by Ravi Anantha and others would not fall under the purview of Section 23 of the Act, which reads thus: "DISPUTE REGARDING MANAGEMENT:-In event of any dispute arising among the committee or the members of the society, in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society, any member of the society may proceed with the dispute under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Central Act 26 of 1996) or may file any application in the District Court concerned and the said Court shall after necessary inquiry pass such order as it may deem fit." The above provision makes it clear that the District Court can resolve the dispute arising out of the committee or the members of the society in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents relied on a decision reported in Mazher Shaheed And Others V Khaja Moinuddin And Others 1998 (5) Ald 240 , wherein it was held thus: "It is seen from paragraph 7 of the above judgment that what the Division Bench has held is that Section 11 specifically mandates that in respect of disputes between the members of the Managing Committee inter se or members of the Society inter se, action can be brought in the District Court concerned. Further, it is also held that if one set of the people contend that the other set has not been properly elected and that they are usurpers, it is for them to bring a civil action for appropriate relief" Therefore, Ravi Anantha failed to establish that he was duly admitted as a member of M/s Margadarshini Educational Society either by the Executive Committee or by the General Body. Such is the case, question of electing him as a Secretary by virtue of a resolution, dated 14-04-2003, by the members of the society does not arise. Ex.A2-list of office bearers shows that he was an executive member. Such is the case, question of electing him as a Secretary by virtue of a resolution, dated 14-04-2003, by the members of the society does not arise. Ex.A2-list of office bearers shows that he was an executive member. Similarly, Ex.A6-lease deed would go to show that the 2nd defendant was the Secretary of the society, but the plaintiff placed strong reliance on Ex.A15-minutes book, wherein he was unanimously nominated as Secretary of the Society in the meeting allegedly held on 14-04-2003 in Ashoka Hotel, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. Similarly, under Ex.A16 a letter was addressed to the Registrar with regard to change of General Secretary of M/s Margadarshini Educational Society. This document would go to show that in pursuance of the meeting held on 14-04-2003, Ravi Anantha was unanimously nominated as the General Secretary. Ex.A22 is the minutes of the meeting, dated 01-06-2003, wherein it was resolved that the 2nd defendant has to pay the amount as per the auditor's report. Ex.A24 is the minutes of the meeting, dated 15-06-2003, wherein no resolution was passed. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents relied on a decision reported in Hindurao Balwant Patil And Another V Krishna Rao Parushuram Patil And Others Air 1982 Bombay 216 , wherein it was held thus: "In this context it cannot be forgotten that ultimately the final authority in the matter of management of the society vests in the general body of members and not in the board of directors. By the bye-law 34 (c) the power is conferred upon the general body to pass a vote of no confidence against the board of Directors. There are other provisions in the Act. Rules and the bye-laws dealing with disqualifications and sufficient to protect the society from mismanagement etc." There is no material filed by the plaintiff to show that how the 2nd defendant was removed as Secretary. Similarly, no resolution was passed under Ex.A16. It is not known as to whether the meeting held on 14-04-2003 at Ashoka Hotel, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad is a Annual General Body Meeting or Executive Committee meeting or special General Body Meeting. If it is a Executive Committee meeting, there is no need for ex-members to be present. If it is a General Body meeting, it cannot be held except after one year of the newly elected body assumes office, but a special meeting can be convened according to the bye-laws. If it is a Executive Committee meeting, there is no need for ex-members to be present. If it is a General Body meeting, it cannot be held except after one year of the newly elected body assumes office, but a special meeting can be convened according to the bye-laws. That procedure has not been followed. In proof of Ex.A1 and the resolutions, Ex.A15, A20, A24,A26 and A27, the plaintiff has not examined any witness or member to prove about the resolutions. The trial Court held that Ex.A2 is a genuine document, whereas the appellate court held that it was not genuine because the original of Ex.A2 was not found in Ex.C1, which was called for by the appellate court with the consent of both parties. When all the papers of the society was found in Ex.C1, which was recorded in C.C.494 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Sangareddy, it does not contain the original of Ex.A2. Ex.A15-resolution, dated 14-04-2003, passed by the members of the society to nominate Ravi Anantha as Secretary. Ex.A50 is the sale deed, whereunder Ravi Anantha agreed to purchase plot No.107 admeasuring 432 square yards from the plaintiff society represented by its Vice-President, P. Subhashan, would not reveal that he was the Secretary of the society. Ex.A50 does not contain that Ravi Anantha was the member of the society or he was described as Secretary of the society. As a matter of fact, he could not have purchased the property from the society if he is a member or Secretary of the society. 22. Furthermore, in Ex.A15, dated 14-04-2003, P.W.2 was shown as Vice- President and correspondent, whereas Ex.A50 was executed by the Vice-Chairman P. Subhashan. Therefore, Ex.A50 destroys the case of Ravi Anantha as Secretary of the society and Ajay Chowdary was the Vice-President. Hence, on the face of it, Ex.A15 was fabricated and pressed into service for the reasons best known to Ravi Anantha. This aspect has not been considered by the trial Court and the appellate Court rightly set aside that finding. Therefore, Ex.A50 destroys the case of Ravi Anantha as Secretary of the society and Ajay Chowdary was the Vice-President. Hence, on the face of it, Ex.A15 was fabricated and pressed into service for the reasons best known to Ravi Anantha. This aspect has not been considered by the trial Court and the appellate Court rightly set aside that finding. The meetings and the resolutions as mentioned in Exs.A15, A20, A24 and A27 are not in accordance with Section 20 of the Act, which reads thus: "Meetings:- 1) The bye-laws of the society shall specify the frequency and the manner in which the meetings of the Committee and General Body shall be held, so however that the Committee shall meet at least once in every three months and General Body shall meet at least once in a year. 2) The Committee shall convene a General Body meeting within thirty days of receipt of a requisition for convening a meeting signed by at least one third of the members of the society or as provided in the bye-laws and any such requisition shall contain the proposed agenda and the reasons for such meeting. 3) Every society shall record in the minutes book, the minutes of all proceedings of every General Body meeting and also every meeting of its Committee. 4) Such minutes shall be communicated to all the members invited for the meeting within thirty days of the conclusion of the meeting. 5) The minutes so recorded shall be signed by the person who chaired the said meeting." As per the above provision, it is clear that only two kinds of meetings can be contemplated under the Act. One is General Body meeting and the other is Executive Committee meeting. With regard to these resolutions, the appellate Court found that from page No.37 of Ex.C1, it is clear that all the documents filed by the respondents particularly Exs.A15 to A18, A20, A24, A26 and A27 are spurious and created high handedly. The finding is based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record because at page No.37 of Ex.C1, a notice was given by Ajay Chowdary-P.W.2 as Vice-President for the meeting held on 06-07-2003 to the effect that K. Satyanarayana would preside over the meeting, but as per Ex.A24 resolution, dated 15-06-2003, K. Satyanarayana was expelled from the society. The finding is based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record because at page No.37 of Ex.C1, a notice was given by Ajay Chowdary-P.W.2 as Vice-President for the meeting held on 06-07-2003 to the effect that K. Satyanarayana would preside over the meeting, but as per Ex.A24 resolution, dated 15-06-2003, K. Satyanarayana was expelled from the society. When K. Satyanarayana was expelled from the society, question of presiding over the meeting by him would not arise. The trial Court relied upon meeting covered by Exs.A15 and A20, which go to show that the 2nd defendant attended the meeting and they are genuine documents. But the appellate Court came to the conclusion that Exs.A15 and A20 are fabricated documents and that finding cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to law. The 2nd defendant could not have been attended the meeting covered by Exs.A15 and A20 held on 14- 04-2003 and 01-06-2003 respectively as he was sick from 02-05-2003 to 30-08-2003 as per the medical certificate found in Ex.C1. Ex.A15 was not filed along with the plaint. If really, the 2nd defendant was a party to Ex.A15 meeting, in the resolution it would have stated that the 2nd defendant handed over the charge to Ravi Anantha. Similarly, Ex.A16 does not contain that 2nd defendant handed over the charge to Ravi Anantha. Ex.A17 is the proceedings of the Chartered Accountant issued to the members wherein one N. Venkateswarlu was shown as Correspondent whereas Ravi Anantha was shown as Secretary. It is dated 10-05-2003 and that cannot be relied upon unless it is shown that he was duly admitted as member of the society or he was duly elected as Secretary by the members. Under Ex.A18, dated 22-05-2003, a notice was issued to the members of the society to attend the General Body Meeting on 01-06-2003. When according to the defendants, the first General Body Meeting was held on 19-01-2003 on which date, the Executive Committee was elected, question of conducting General Body Meeting on 01-06-2003 does not arise because one year has not been elapsed. It is not a special General Body Meeting held in accordance with bye-law. Therefore, in pursuance of that notice, General Body Meeting which was called for on 01-06-2003 as per Ex.A20 cannot be said to be a valid meeting as per bye-law. 23. Similarly, under Ex.A24, meeting of the society members was held on 15-06-2003. It is not a special General Body Meeting held in accordance with bye-law. Therefore, in pursuance of that notice, General Body Meeting which was called for on 01-06-2003 as per Ex.A20 cannot be said to be a valid meeting as per bye-law. 23. Similarly, under Ex.A24, meeting of the society members was held on 15-06-2003. Under law, two types of meetings can be held in respect of society. Therefore, Ex.A24 is also not a valid meeting under the law. Similarly, under Ex.A26 meeting of the members of the society was held. This document would go to show that this is a special meeting. It is not a Executive Committee Meeting nor a special General Body Meeting. Therefore, there is no legal sanctity to this meeting. Under Ex.A27, a special General Body Meeting was called for. For the purpose of calling a Special General Body Meeting, there was a procedure prescribed as per bye-laws and as per the Act. The said procedure is not followed. Therefore, no importance can be given to these documents. 24. Further, the plaintiff is relying upon Ex.A31, which is the school diary of the daughter of the 2nd defendant, which contains the name of M. Ajay Chowdary as Vice-President/Correspondent and Ravi Anantha as Secretary. The trial Court basing on this document came to the conclusion that the 2nd defendant was having knowledge that Ravi Anantha was the Secretary of the society and N. Venkateswarlu was the Joint Secretary/Correspondent. Therefore, on the face of it, it can be said that both Ajay Chowdary and N. Venkateswarlu cannot be said to be Correspondents because there is only one post of Correspondent. On own showing by the plaintiff as per Ex.A27, N. Venkateswarlu was elected as President. Therefore, question of designating him as Joint Secretary does not arise. Hence, Ex.A31 does not improve the case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also relied upon Ex.A40-proceedings of the D.E.O. This document does not in any way help to the case of the plaintiff because it was not mentioned anywhere in the proceedings that Ravi Anantha was the Secretary. Ex.A49 was filed to show that it was a wrong resolution for non-existing of lease. It is dated 02-04-2002, but as per Ex.A6, the society itself obtained the lease in the month of June, 2002 and therefore, question of leveling of the land under Ex.A49 does not arise. Ex.A49 was filed to show that it was a wrong resolution for non-existing of lease. It is dated 02-04-2002, but as per Ex.A6, the society itself obtained the lease in the month of June, 2002 and therefore, question of leveling of the land under Ex.A49 does not arise. The letter, dated 28-03-2002 of BHEL MIG society allotting some extent of land for 99 years for construction and running of Educational Institution is found to be false or concocted document and it does not improve the case of the plaintiff because the lacunae or weaknesses in the case of the defendants cannot be taken advantage by the plaintiff. 25. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that except extracting the minutes from Ex.B8-minutes book of the society, the appellate Court did not make any attempt to correlate the resolutions and examining them on the basis of the other documentary evidence. As per Ex.B8, dated 22-01-2002, the 2nd defendant was authorized to approach BHEL MIG Employees Co-operative Housing Society for allotment of land to establish an Educational Institute. As per the proceedings, dated 31-03-2002, the General Secretary was authorized to enter into the agreement. The letter, dated 28-03-2003 was not produced. But, from 22-01-2002 onwards, the 2nd defendant was authorized to approach the BHEL MIG Employees Co-operative Housing Society for obtaining land on lease. Even assuming for a moment that the resolution dated 31-03-2002 appears to be a false one, the plaintiff cannot succeed to show that he was the Secretary of the society. 26. Similarly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the resolution, dated 08-07-2002, authorizes General Secretary to submit information to the D.E.O. but Exs.B21 and B22 would disclose that Educational Institution have not called for any information and the said resolution is false. Similarly, in the resolution, dated 29-09-2002, it was held that resignation letters of four members were misplaced, but at request of the members present, the resigned members agreed to continue. On this aspect, the defendants had taken two different views. One is that Ravi Anantha and his associates have stolen the resignation letters, and D.W.1 stated that resignation letters have been misplaced. Whatever may the plea taken by the defendants, the fact remains the Investigating Officer in C.C.494 of 2004, seized the same from the office of the Registrar of Societies. One is that Ravi Anantha and his associates have stolen the resignation letters, and D.W.1 stated that resignation letters have been misplaced. Whatever may the plea taken by the defendants, the fact remains the Investigating Officer in C.C.494 of 2004, seized the same from the office of the Registrar of Societies. Therefore, that will not help the case of the plaintiff. Even assuming for a moment that Exs.B7 and B8 minutes book are found to be false as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant because of variance in the correspondence and the minutes of the resolution, they cannot be taken into consideration to infer that Ravi Anantha was the Secretary of the society. As already pointed out on the weaknesses of the case of the defendants and the inconsistent pleas if any, taken by the defendants, cannot be used to strengthen the plaintiff case because, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his pleadings and evidence. The evidence of P.W.1 is absent with regard to payment of admission fee. A member of the society has to be admitted into society as per the resolution of the Executive Committee or General Body. On this aspect, the plaintiff placed strong reliance on Ex.A2, which contains the name of Ravi Anantha as a member. The 2nd defendant denies the signature in Ex.A2. Ex.A2 shows that Ajay Chowdary was shown as Vice-President in addition to P. Subhashan as per the bye-law. There can be only one Vice-President but not two Vice-Presidents. The attesters of Ex.A2 were not examined. The trial Court placed reliance on Ex.A2, but the appellate Court disbelieved the same on the ground that the date on the first paper of Ex.A2 is mentioned as 11-10-2002, but on the fifth paper of Ex.A2, it was mentioned as 10-02-2002 as copy compared. Another reason is that Ex.C1 contain all the copies of the extracts of the society, but Ex.A2 copy was not found and it was missing. Therefore, the reasons given by the appellate Court in disbelieving Ex.A2 cannot be said to be improper and incorrect. Convincing reasons have been given by the appellate Court to reject Ex.A2, which is the base document for the plaintiff to contend that he was the member of the society. Therefore, the reasons given by the appellate Court in disbelieving Ex.A2 cannot be said to be improper and incorrect. Convincing reasons have been given by the appellate Court to reject Ex.A2, which is the base document for the plaintiff to contend that he was the member of the society. The trial Court has not given any cogent reasons as to how Ravi Anantha was admitted as a member of the society or that his admission was approved by the Executive Committee, but placing reliance on Ex.A15, it was held that the 2nd defendant was removed from the post of Secretary of the society. Though it is stated that members have unanimously resolved to remove the 2nd defendant as Secretary, that resolution appears to be false because as on that date, the 2nd defendant was not doing well. Therefore, question of his attending the meeting does not arise. This aspect was not properly dealt with by the trial Court and came to the conclusion that meeting was attended by the 2nd defendant, which on the face of record is incorrect. Perhaps that is the reason why, the appellate Court has not placed any reliance on Ex.A2. The documents filed by the defendants Exs.B4, B5, B7 and B8 would clearly go to show that Ravi Anantha was not the member of the society and that finding cannot be said to be perverse. If really, Ravi Anantha was the member of the society and he was unanimously elected as Secretary by the resolution, dated 14-04-2003, there is no need for him to file O.P.456 of 2004 in the month of March, 2004, under Section 23 of the Act to declare him as a member of the society. By virtue of the order, dated 12-03-2008, in I.A.No.2126 of 2007 in O.P.No.4546 of 2004, on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Ravi Anantha was declared as not a member of the society. When he is not a member of the society, question of electing him as Secretary does not arise and there is no need at all for him to file the application before the learned District Judge under Section 23 of the Act. When he is not a member of the society, question of electing him as Secretary does not arise and there is no need at all for him to file the application before the learned District Judge under Section 23 of the Act. The appellate Court has not placed reliance on Exs.A15, A20, A26 and A27 on the ground that when Ravi Anantha and his associates were not at all members of the society, the resolutions passed by them become invalid ab initio as they would not have any effect on the society. That finding cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to evidence on record because there is no evidence on record to show that Ravi Anantha and his associates were admitted as members or that they have paid necessary requisite fee and as a matter of fact, P.W.1 has not given any evidence on what date he was admitted as a member and those resolutions are contrary to Section 20 of the Act. As seen from those documents, Ravi Anantha started conducting meetings of the society from 14-04-2003 onwards and the same has no legal sanctity. Furthermore, another circumstance to disbelieve these documents is none of the meetings as contemplated under Exs.A15, A20, A24 and A27 was held in the office of the society. Because, under normal circumstances, meetings would be held in the registered office of the society. 27. Coming to the evidence of defendants, Ex.B2 is the certificate of registration, which shows that the 2nd defendant is the Secretary of the society. Ex.B3 is the minutes of the first Annual General Body Meeting, dated 19-01-2003. These two documents are not denied or disputed specifically in the cross-examination of D.W.1. As per Ex.B28 issued by Registrar of Societies, which contains rules and regulations, it is clear that Annual General Body will meet once in a year in the month of January. Therefore, next General Body has to meet on or after 19-01-2004. One of the functions of the General Body as per Ex.B28 is to elect Executive Committee. There is no rule or regulation brought to the notice of this Court to show that one of the Executive Committee members can be removed or another member can be nominated to Executive Committee or Secretary of the society. One of the functions of the General Body as per Ex.B28 is to elect Executive Committee. There is no rule or regulation brought to the notice of this Court to show that one of the Executive Committee members can be removed or another member can be nominated to Executive Committee or Secretary of the society. Therefore, the resolution, dated 14-04-2003, under Ex.A15, removing the 2nd defendant as Secretary and nominating Ravi Anantha is not a valid resolution in the eye of rules and regulations. Ex.B4 is the list of executive committee members elected on 19-01-2003, whereas Ex.B5 shows the list of members of the society as on 19-01-2003 with their signatures. These two documents were not under challenge during the examination of D.W.1. Only suggestion given to D.W.1 is that Exs.B10 to B13 are created after filing of the suit. Ex.B7 is the minutes book of first Annual General Body meeting, dated 19-01-2003 and with confirmation meeting of Annual General Body Meeting, dated 23-02-2002. Ex.B14 is the notice, dated 06-01-2003 to the members informing about first Annual General Body to be held on 19-01-2003. Though Ex.B15 minutes of meeting, dated 19-01-2003, was communicated belatedly, District Registrar called for the explanation for not sending the list, for which reply as in Ex.B17 was given by the 2nd defendant. The list of members of society as submitted by plaintiff was not recognized by the District Registrar in as much as list of members under Ex.B7 was with the Registrar. Aforesaid evidence would clearly disclose that society represented by the 2nd defendant as Secretary is correct and proper one. 28. The contention that Ravi Anantha was elected as Secretary and the same was intimated to Registrar under Ex.A16 has no legs to stand because no resolution of General Body electing him as Secretary is filed. But, according to P.W.1, new quorum of members by November, 2002 have unanimously elected as Secretary by resolution, dated 14-04-2003. But, as seen from resolution, dated 14-04-2003 (Ex.A15), five office bearers and five ex-members nominated him as Secretary. But as per articles of association, it is the General Body to elect the Executive Committee, which includes the post of General Secretary. The said meeting attended by ten members cannot be said to be a General Body Meeting because Ex.B4- list of Executive Committee and Ex.B5-list of members show that the society has enrolled thirty-one members. But as per articles of association, it is the General Body to elect the Executive Committee, which includes the post of General Secretary. The said meeting attended by ten members cannot be said to be a General Body Meeting because Ex.B4- list of Executive Committee and Ex.B5-list of members show that the society has enrolled thirty-one members. The list of members as mentioned in Exs.B4 and B5 have not admittedly elected Ravi Anantha as Secretary of the society. Therefore, the assertion of P.W.1 that as per Ex.A15, he was elected as Secretary is illegal as quorum for General Body is half of the total members for General Body as per rules and regulations of the society. Admittedly, the 2nd defendant is the founder Secretary of the society, but no resolution passed by the General Body removing the 2nd defendant as Secretary is filed. Further, P.W.1 admitted that list of members and General Body resolution filed by the 2nd defendant before the District Registrar were accepted and his list was not accepted, that admittedly, P.W.2 was not present at the time of registration, that he does not know who are the members of the society and he has no connection with the society at the time of registration. 29. Coming to the jurisdiction, the school run by the society is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court and therefore, the trial Court is having jurisdiction to try the suit. Basing on the evidence, the appellate Court held that the trial Court was not having any jurisdiction to try the suit in view of bar under Section 23 of the Act. That reasoning appears to be correct, because, Ravi Anantha claiming to be the member of society and he was elected as Secretary and hence it is a dispute arising among the committee or members of the society. In such a case, an application to the District Court concerned to inquire into the matter arises. As seen from the certificate of registration, the office is located in Flat No.406/A, Radha Krishna Estate, Road No.4, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. That address has not been hanged even till today. Therefore, admittedly, the society office was situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Ranga Reddy District Court. As seen from the certificate of registration, the office is located in Flat No.406/A, Radha Krishna Estate, Road No.4, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. That address has not been hanged even till today. Therefore, admittedly, the society office was situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Ranga Reddy District Court. The suit is not filed for recovery of possession of school premises, but the suit was filed for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with day-to-day activities of the school and disturbing the functioning of the school. It is averred that the respondents are interfering with the day-to-day affairs of the school and disturbing the functioning of the school, which office is not located within the jurisdiction of the trial Court. The finding of the appellate Court that the trial Court has no jurisdiction can be accepted and on correct approach, the appellate Court came to the conclusion that in view of bar under Section 23 of the Act, the trial Court has no jurisdiction. The dispute is with regard to the member of the society and whether he is a member of the Executive Committee or not has to be decided by a forum under Section 23 of the Act. As Ravi Anantha claims that he is the member of the society and he was duly elected as Secretary, filing of suit by him is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Therefore, the appellate Court rightly reversed the findings of the trial Court. None of the findings of the appellate Court is shown to be perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. The substantial questions of law as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant are not shown to be real substantial questions of law. Hence, the Second Appeal deserves to be dismissed as it does not involve any substantial question of law. 30. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed with costs confirming the judgment and decree, dated 01-09-2008, made in A.S.No.29 of 2006, on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.